RIP Free Speech

FreeCongress ^ | 8/3/04 | Paul M. Weyrich

[ZGuy]

The other day I received a magazine published by a conservative think tank in Canada. On the cover was a tombstone that said “R.I.P. Free Speech.” Indeed, it is no longer permissible in Canada to preach that homosexuality is a deviant life style. That is now hate speech. A minister or priest risks jail by preaching what is in the Scriptures.

Guess what? What is happening in Canada is likely to happen here. Canada led the way with homosexual “marriage”. Even the recently defeated Conservative Party did not propose to repeal the right of homosexuals to “marry”. They did suggest they would tackle the issue of free speech and that was one of the issues that caused the Liberals to rally voters saying that the Conservatives were “scary”. The culture has really collapsed there as it is about to collapse here.

I have no idea if John Kerry will be elected in November. If he isn’t, then perhaps Hillary or John Edwards or some other liberal will be elected in 2008. Voters often get itchy after eight years of one party in the White House.

Whether it is Kerry this time or a Kerry think-alike next time, one of these days a real liberal is going to be elected. And high on the agenda will be to reduce the influence of, or if they can get by with it, to outlaw the religious right. Far out, you think? I wish it were. I have said it before. I will say it again. The religious right is going to be at least marginalized by that crowd. They will do it in the name of pluralism and nary a voice will be raised.

Here is their formula. It is essentially the same formula by which Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status. I did not agree with the policy of Bob Jones University that prohibited interracial dating. It was, however, a position rooted in Scripture. No matter. Even the Reagan Administration ended up pulling the plug on Bob Jones on the grounds that its religious views contradicted national policy. National policy is one of non-discrimination. What Bob Jones did was regarded as discrimination; therefore they were not entitled to a tax exemption. Even though some of the Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s institutions discriminate against whites, they get to keep their tax-exempt status. Bob Jones was associated with the religious right. Farrakhan certainly is not.

One of the national objectives is to eliminate all discrimination against women. I happen to belong to a church with an all male clergy. There is absolutely no possibility that women will be ordained in my church. That is blatant discrimination. So at some point a disgruntled member of my church or one of our sister churches will bring a charge of discrimination against us. Never mind that if a person is dissatisfied there are all sorts of churches he can join. No, the issue will be discrimination in my church. The government will rule that my church is guilty of gender discrimination. Not only will we lose our tax-exempt status, we will be ordered to ordain women. When attorneys will argue that to be true to the founder of our church, Jesus Christ, we can’t have a female clergy, the Supreme Court will rule that adherence to the Scriptures matters not. We will be ordered to ordain women or we must cease to be a practicing church in the United States. [There is always the hope the courts would rule favorably in view of the interplay between the First Amendment and the laws on tax-exempt organizations (including churches), but unfortunately that is not the way to bet.]

Moreover, it will be national policy to integrate homosexuals into all aspects of society. I am not speaking here of denying homosexuals any of their Constitutional rights. As much as I might object to their lifestyle I absolutely agree that homosexuals have the same rights as any American citizen. However, government policy will go further. It will postulate that homosexuals must be accepted everywhere. Boy Scout troops will no longer be able to reject homosexual scoutmasters. Seminaries will no longer be able to reject homosexual applicants. My policy at the Free Congress Foundation has always been that I never inquire about a person’s sexual proclivities. No doubt I have had homosexuals working here. If, however, someone tries to force the homosexual agenda on our organization that is another matter. That I would not tolerate. Well, under the regime of one of these liberals that kind of -- what they would call -- discrimination would not be tolerated. Our organizations would not only lose a tax exemption, they would effectively be put out of business. If a conservative group was forced to accept as an employee someone who intrinsically opposed the agenda of the organization and who might well be offensive to other employees, this organization as well as most others could not exist. This would be an excellent way to marginalize Free Congress or any other organization that deals with values issues.

There are several other ways the religious right could be put out of business. Force Pat Robertson to hire an atheist on the grounds that national policy requires we eliminate all religious discrimination and you likely end his influence and that of his several very effective organizations. Just this past week the Tampa, Florida City Council invited an avowed atheist to deliver an “invocation”. He does not believe in God, but city fathers suggested it would be discrimination to exclude him.

I know this sounds like I may have come unhinged. But what if in 1994, the year that the Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, I would have written that we must have a Constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage because certain courts were forcing the issue of homosexual marriage on the country, what would you have thought? It would have sounded so extreme. Everyone understood just ten years ago that marriage was between one man and one woman. Yet here we are. What happens in Canada has an effect on these United States. Conservatives, who were expected to pick up enough seats to prevent the Liberals from forming a government, made a disappointing showing. Analysts suggested it was because they were perceived to be affiliated with the religious right. They had the temerity to defend free speech.

Elections matter. Who becomes Attorney General matters. For the entire alleged rap against John Ashcroft, I cannot imagine that he, or anyone President Bush would appoint in a second term, would try to marginalize the religious right. One of these years, even if not this year, a liberal will occupy the White House. In 1988 voters, in effect, gave Ronald Reagan a third term by electing Vice President George Bush. But after twelve years voters selected Bill Clinton. The longest run in modern times without changing parties was FDR and Harry Truman from 1932 to 1952. That time encompassed the Great Depression, World War II and the Korean War. It is unlikely we will ever experience a period like that again. So just watch what a liberal Attorney General will do. For all the lip service at the Democratic Convention about protecting the Constitution, that protection when the time comes won’t extend to the religious right. I hope I am dead wrong. I fear that I am not.